Why would I put my name on the list when there are only six other fencers, since doing so requires me to spend money?
I appreciate your amazingly helpful insight that the list is short because there is no one on it, as well as your very persuasive argument for my continuing not to go to the Rose Condon ROC.
One of the things used to judge the strength of an upcoming tournament is the way it went last year. In this case, it's how the last one went. Now, I have a significant amount of respect for Dan and his ability, but if he's the best one at the tournament (as is obvious, because he won), I can't see how you can come even close to justifying comparing it to a NAC.
Another thing to take into consideration is what else is going on at that time, particularly in the division. The Cougar Call to Arms is also that weekend at U of H, in Houston, the Longhorn Open is the week before in Austin, NAC's A and B are two weeks before/after. We've been invited by friends in your club to come up but the field at the Texas tournaments is far better (and less travel). If it didn't conflict with an otherwise full schedule of well attended tournaments elsewhere, I think you'd have a bigger Texas contingent, at least. Even Rose Condon is better attended at this point, although admittedly you've got more time for sign ups. The fee structure and timing therein on that one also was a barrier to entry to some extent, I believe.
It is in Oklahoma which is inconvenient to get to from Pennsylvania. Getting on a plane and staying in a hotel is just not happening for a tournament currently that size - even with the possibility of a $1K prize as a carrot.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally take a look at the results. ~ Churchill
I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult. ~ Rita Rudner
THIS is where I turn a little snarky: The list is short now, genius, because no one has signed up yet. Once people sign up, the list will be longer. Someone has to register first. ... If you put your name on the list, the next guy would see seven fencers. If he signed up, the next person would see eight, etc. So justifying your position based on early registration numbers is counter-productive to my question.
Speaking of counter-productive ...
So you're running an event that you're trying to promote with a non trivial cash prize. As part of a series with an even bigger final prize. And it seems you're concerned about the early low reg numbers and you're trying to get people excited and highlighting the prizes.
Then you go and structure a game where some whom you've successfully managed to influence based on the prizes could well have an incentive to register as late as possible, not as soon as possible. That seems needlessly counter-productive.
I was tempted (and still am) by the $1k. But I think that the per event prizes should probably be divided a little more. Something like $500, $300, $200 (fencing off for 3rd). Then enough good fencers think "well, even if someone really good signs up at the last minute I still have a decent chance of offsetting most of the travel costs". Plus, for the 4th place fencer, you compensate for not getting the $200 by them at least getting one more good 15 touch bout. Like I said on the Elite Open thread, most fencers won't win, and most fencers know this. If you take that into account, and then look at how much time and money it takes most fencers to get to OK, you need to tip the scale in favor of "what else is the fencer getting for the trip". For a fencer who won't win, the event format needs to be good, the competition needs to be good, and hopefully there also is some sort of social event schedule around it (see Duel in the Desert or most seasons other than this one the Sierra Nevada open).
That way it doesn't stack up like this:
1) Fly to OK @ $200
2) sleep in a lonely hotel room @ $100
3) fence some random fencers, after two weak DEs lose in the semi-finals to someone pretty good but not so good that you feel lucky to have gotten the chance @ $50
4) fly home @ $200
it stacks up more like this:
1) same flight
2) hang out with some cool fencer people
3) same hotel
4) fence some decently tough bouts, lose in the semi, fence off for 3rd, win, get $200
5) hang out at some event with some cool fencer people
6) fly home
You still won't get that many, but you were only looking for 28 in the first place, right? I am thinking about going to one even so, if I can find the time, but I think a couple people from the area might go if it was the second schedule rather than the first.
-ph
Last edited by counterattack; 09-25-2009 at 08:22 PM.
Reason: "two week DEs" would be long. "Two weak DEs" I mean
I know winning and taking the money would kill a person's amateur status for the sake of NCAA fencing. (I think)
Would you maintain amateure status for the sake of olympic competition? I don't even know what kind of amateur status is required.*
You don't need to be an amateur to be in the Olympics. They changed that back in the 1990's. I remember as soon as that happened we had a few tournaments where the winner received a nominal amount, and a number of the contestants went on to the Olympics.
R-
"Some people are born great fencers, some people achieve fencing greatness, and some people have it thrust upon them."
You don't need to be an amateur to be in the Olympics. They changed that back in the 1990's. I remember as soon as that happened we had a few tournaments where the winner received a nominal amount, and a number of the contestants went on to the Olympics.
R-
Ahh. I believe there are still a few sports that require amateur status in the olympics, but I could be wrong.
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Originally Posted by Tomas N
